Monthly Archive for: ‘July, 2010’
Everyone is familiar with Sir Richard Branson and his empire, Virgin Enterprises Limited (“Virgin Enterprises”) whose interests include airlines, soft drinks, mobile phone services and even commercial space travel. You may even be familiar with our previous posts on their involvement in trade mark proceedings for Read More
Following the success of its 2008 case in which Gucci secured permanent injunctions against certain defendants, collectively known as “Laurette” for the sale of counterfeit Gucci products on a website called TheBagAddiction.com, Gucci brought proceedings in 2009 against Durango Merchant Services, Frontline Processing Corp, and Woodforest National Bank, alleging that they aided and assisted Laurette by offering credit card processing services which enabled infringing sales over the internet to take place.
In Best Buy Co. Inc v Worldwide Sales Corporation España S.L.  EWHC 1666 (Ch), the High Court of Justice (UK) had to consider whether a statement made in the course of negotiations constituted a “threat of legal proceedings” under section 21 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (UK) (“the Act”). This section provides that, in certain circumstances, a party may seek relief from the court where a person “threatens another with proceedings for infringement of a registered trade mark”. There are similar such provisions in Australia.
In a recent decision (Monsanto Technology LLC v Cefetra BV and Others), the Court of Justice of the European Union declared that patent protection for gene patents will only extend to gene sequences which are performing the specific function for which they were patented. The decision of the Court is the first-ever judicial assessment of the extent to which European patent law will protect gene patents.
The Fitzroy Football Club and the Brisbane Lions have negotiated a settlement in relation to their dispute over the new logo unveiled by the Brisbane Lions in October 2009.
Readers will be familiar with the lawsuit brought by the Estate of Adrian Jacobs (the long deceased author of Willy the Wizard) against J K Rowling and her UK publishers, Bloomsbury. It is alleged that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is derivative of Willy the Wizard, infringing copyright in that work.
IP Whiteboard compared the works in April, reporting our findings here.
(Now that we have your attention!…) Earlier this year, we blogged on the Advertising Standards Bureau (“ASB”), the organisation responsible for administering a national system of advertising self-regulation, mainly through its Advertising Standards Board (“Board”). We’ve now had a look at how the Board dealt with the 47 complaints it considered in March this year, and there are some interesting lessons.